User talk:Loansince

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Welcome!

Hello, Loansince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Simonkoldyk 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and the three revert rule

Please be aware that Wikipedia has a three revert rule which means that editors can't undo another editor's work more than three times in any 24-hour period. You have broken the rule on Coral Smith. Edit-warring and revert warring is damaging to Wikipedia and people who break the three revert rule can be blocked from editing in order to allow them to cool down.

Because you are a new user, I don't intend to block you. However, do not rely on being shown leniency in future. Wikipedia works by discussion between editors of differing viewpoints in order to agree a consensus, with everyone being committed to improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. Please continue to constructively discuss your edits and remember to comment on what other people say rather than commenting on them as people. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion

While in certain circumstances you can delete comments on your talk page, this is not one of them, and your edit summary in this edit is incivil. I give you warning that if you remove this warning or the previous notice about edit warring, you will be blocked from editing. I also advise you to read Wikipedia civility policy; breaking it can also result in you being blocked. I have shown you leniency for revert warring; please don't try my patience. Sam Blacketer 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for removing warnings

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for removing warnings from your user talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Sam Blacketer 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao! Difference between archiving and removing comments, big guy. You weren't allowed to do that because I archived all that mess out. Never was deleted. I'd stop listening to irritating trolls running around trying to cause trouble, like JTRH, and leave well enough alone or else you will end up making mistakes like this. That's hilarious that my archiving the page got you to break the rules, because now I can tell on you to another administrator. :) Loansince 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to appeal your block you are able to do so. Sam Blacketer 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Sam Blacketer had no right to block me for archiving a warning and then claiming I deleted it, when it was archived. I do not like the fact that he has accused me of breaking a policy that I never broke and then wonders why I become upset. He's also been entertaining these annoying trolls (JTRH) who won't leave me alone, running around to different talk pages trying to cause trouble rather than doing any editing, and telling people I removed comments from my talk page. Instead of Sam telling these trolls Loansince is not breaking any rules because he is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, he's been entertaining them by adding back the removed comments and then blocking me for telling me I removed warnings when they were archived"

Decline reason: "Sock of banned user. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abuse of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Please! Any administrator out there who's normal and thinks clearly. I am beginning to think one doesn't exist because I've met yet another senseless administrator. I have dealt with enough idiots for one day. I now have to report 2 administrators. That just proves how literally messed up wikipedia is. I have to report one administrator for false accusation of removing warnings from my talk page which is clearly shown in the edit history of this article, and now another administrator for accusations of multiple sockpuppets, when I only have had one account on wikipedia! Help! Please! Only if you know how to do your job as an administrator, look at this"

}

You are a toast now. Just leave WP, it is full of stupid admins. Remember to tell about your case your friends, write about it on your blog etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.120.56 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yea, if all the administrators are this bad and the place is this drastically out of control, this probably isn't a legitimate website anyway. I just wish it would state these criticisms with some of the terrible administators and editors that people are forced to deal with (2 are above) on the wikipedia's wikipedia page but you can't edit that article probably because people have tried to state the criticisms and there were too many. Loansince 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For interested readers, this is:

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! NONE OF THOSE ARE ME Loansince 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it! I've edited some television shows and they do to, so we're all the same person. Wow, someone really needs to send wikipedia to an article about websites you shouldn't go to. I originally came here because I thought yahoo answers was bad and wanted to make that public. THIS PLACE IS TOTALLY WORSE Loansince 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, JpGorden is a Checkuser. He apparently looked up your IP, and found it was related to the above users. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not them so he is mistaken. But I guess all these mistakes up above by these trolling editors, whiny users who complain about words like 'completed', and ADMINISTRATORS no less, who block me for no reason are hints that if I could come back, I will have to go through the same garbage. I am with the guy above on making these criticisms public somehow and encouraging people not to get involved with wikipedia somehow. Goodbye! By the way, obviously you can tell the checkuser jpgorden doesn't know what he's doing because birthdaybank was never even a user if u click on that link Loansince 21:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, however, it is a typo. If you feel that way about wikipedia, then you should get rid of the unblock request. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it was a typo. He meant BirthdayBank. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected. Please direct any appeals to be unblocked to a member of the Arbitration Committee for consideration. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]